Managing communication Essay

The turn exchange system of interpreting mirrors the possibilities of ordinary turn exchanges in any language, Smooth transitions, potential gaps or pauses, and overlapping talk are all features of turn-taking processes in any language. However, in face-to-face encounters which are interpreted, interpreters actively involve themselves in the ebb and flow of talk; Interpreters are an integral part of the exchange process. Speakers cannot know possible transition moments in other languages, nor can they know what pauses are or how turns end. They participate only in their own language. Thus, two turn-taking systems are operating independently of each other while yet another system, Ð ° discourse exchange system, is controlled by an interpreter. All primary participants within any discourse event interact in complex ways. Together, speakers and interpreters create pauses, overlapping talk, and turns. Although speakers attend to the interaction because of the reasons that brought them together, interpreters attend to interaction management and make decisions about the discourse process itself. Interpreters are doing more than searching Ð ° lexical bank, or syntactic rules, to create coherent utterances and turns. They act on understandings and expectations of the way social scenes emerge in interaction, as well as on social and cultural knowledge of the â€Å"ways of speaking† within particular situations. Choosing appropriate equivalents depends more on the relative status of the interlocutors and desired outcomes than on grammatical or semantic factors. Some scholars might suggest that the complexity and uniqueness of this event lies solely in the fact that one participant is using Ð ° linguistic system of Ð ° different modality (ASL). However, І argue that the mode of Ð ° linguistic system has very little to do with the nature of interpreting as Ð ° face-to-face interaction. Pauses, simultaneous talk, and confusion regarding turns exist during interpreting no matter which linguistic system is in use. Ð  speaker who knows only German cannot know the import or intention of Ð ° response from Ð ° speaker who knows only Yoruba (Ð ° language of Nigeria) any better just because the languages are spoken and not signed. Interpreters are members of interpreted conversations, involved in creating turn exchanges through their knowledge of the linguistic system, conventions for language use, the social situation, and the discourse structure system. Experienced interpreters, then, are competent bilinguals (or multilingual) who possess knowledge of two (or more) languages and also knowledge of social situations, â€Å"ways of speaking,† and strategies for managing communication. Finally, the interpreter is not solely responsible for either the success of the failure of interpreted interaction. All three participants jointly produce this event, and all three are responsible, in differing degrees, for its communicative success or failure. Accounting for and determining the role of different rights and obligations of speakers and how this knowledge influences interpretations is an ongoing discussion that the profession must have. Although interpreters may know and act instinctively on this knowledge, it is my experience that neither practitioners nor students study, practice, talk about, or reflect on decisions about discourse processes, such as turns and overlapping talk. What is missed in not acknowledging or studying this level of knowledge is that experienced interpreters intuitively and successfully interpret the pragmatic meanings of discourse events more often than not, and, subsequently, these situations turn out much as they would if the two primary speakers did speak Ð ° common language. Although these individual events may turn out successfully, without further research and study, there is not pattern or consensus for teaching interpreting to entering students, for teaching successful strategies, or for competently certifying interpreters.